A $keptical Look At The Space Program?

[Bill Greenwood]

Ok, the space program has had some thrilling moments,the first little globe sent up, the first man on the moon, the spectacle of the launches, the big glider landings. BUT, WHAT ABOUT FROM A $ STANDPOINT? We have had a space program for about 50 years. It used to be a really huge budget, nowadays is about $15 billion, still real money even to a congressman. Over the years taxpayers must have had a few $trillion sucked out by this. So here's my question: from a monetary standpoint, looking past all the hype and the nationalist furor, the entertainment value, and the idea of pure science, WHAT WAS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT ? wHAT has the space program returned to the investor, i e us as taxpayers? Or is it like a big hedge fund where Madoff makes out and the investors eat dirt? And I know how thrilled many of you guys are to see this stuff on tv or at a museum, but that is not my question. I am asking about the return in dollars?

When I see the shuttle on TV it goes up into space every few years, floats around up there for a few months, sometimes goes over to have a Stoli with the Ruskis, then comes back to Earth. When the door opens, I am sort of like when you were a kid and Dad came back from a trip, you wait to see what he brought you? Does the shuttle bring back fat free donuts, or the prevention of common cold, or a cure for aging? As for as I can see it never brings back anything except what went up, and this time they even lost the whole Snap On bag. Now of course the offical NASA answer is by products they discover. But if you really want freeze dried food, then that is what the research should focus on, not as a sideline. What if some part of that money had been spent on cancer research or cheaper solar panels or crash proof cars etc. OR MORE AIRPORTS, anything with a real and DIRECT $ benefit.

One thing that has been of use, is satelites like for weather, and intel.. I don't know if these come from NASA or the military or where, but I don't think the shuttle has much to do with this.

If we had a program where we sent a big Submarine down to sit on the sea bottom for a month and then come up and this went on for years would it be worth lots of $$, except to the companies that made the sub?

[retroaviation]

I just found this with a quick search on the electric internet. Maybe some of these will answer your question........

What has space exploration ever done for us?
Space flight began with superpower prestige - and the race to put a man on the moon. What began as human adventure delivered technologies which changed the world.
Instant television
Since Telstar, the first television satellite in 1962, viewers have watched events almost as they unfolded - from the assassination of President Kennedy to the terrorist assault on the twin towers in New York.

Meteorology
Weather forecasting was once little more accurate than folklore. Now satellites can monitor drought in Africa, floods in the Bay of Bengal and hurricanes across the Caribbean, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Navigation
Lone yachtsmen and jumbo jets now make pinpoint landfalls, and polar explorers with mobile phones can guide rescue craft to the precise ice floe, thanks to global positioning satellites.

Fuel cells
Invented by a Victorian barrister, the Grove fuel cell was ignored until the Apollo programme. Now German cars and Chicago buses are testing the ultimate green fuel - hydrogen, with water as the exhaust.

The environment
Space platforms monitor pollution, measure forest destruction, survey agriculture, identify mineral deposits, spot buried archaeological structures and even uncover agricultural fraud.

Medical health
Spacesuit studies have led to a panoply of health monitors, warning systems, respirators, remote microphones and other miniaturised medical technology.

Robotics
Space engineers have to think small - and flexible. This has inspired a new generation of tiny sensors, monitors and automaton explorers heading for distant planets.

Materials
Apologists always mention non-stick frying pans. But the most dramatic could be aerogel: featherlight but supporting 4,000 times its own weight. Nasa christened it "frozen smoke".

Laptops
Space missions needed onboard computers. But they had to be small. So space research drove the industry to pack ever more power into ever ever smaller hardware.

Weapons
Wernher von Braun's V2 rocket was the first thing to reach the edge of space. It changed warfare just as dramatically as it changed the peace.

[Bill Greenwood]

Gary, do you really believe that smaller computers and laptops came from the space program and would not have occurred without them? If so I can get you a great Warbird a & p job in beautiful west Texas. Great place, mild climate, dust free, soft breezes, green grass and pine forrest with running streams as far as the eye can see.

My everyday skis are now 178 cm, used to be 205 cm. Must remember to thank NASA for that.

[hurk130]

According to Chris Kraft in his book "FLIGHT", telemetery came from the X-1 program where they were dropping X-1 models straight down and getting data but when the things hit the ground most of the instruments were destroyed. So they came up with simple radio pulses that sent info to a station to be recorded and gone through at a later time. Now telemetry in the medical field alone has saved millions alone! One of the biggest problems with the space industry is the cost upfront. I think NASA does a very bad job of explaining to the tax payer what they are doing with our money. The whole gist of this thread proves it.

Kel

[Kyleb]

I liken the space program to my finances. I put away money in 401k's and other investments which I don't expect will pay off imediately. I could get instant gratification by using that money to go on vacation, to update the panel in my airplane, or to buy baubles for my wife. But I think it is more important to invest for the future.

That's the same with space flight. It is an investment in the future. Who knows what the payback will be. If history is any indication, though, there will be a payback. We'll have higher technology sooner rather than later. If we didn't spend that $$ on the space program, would it be better to spend it on a feel good today programs like entitlements?

I vote for taking the long term approach - invest in spaceflight instead of spending on entitlements.

[retroaviation]

Gary, do you really believe that smaller computers and laptops came from the space program and would not have occurred without them? If so I can get you a great Warbird a & p job in beautiful west Texas. Great place, mild climate, dust free, soft breezes, green grass and pine forrest with running streams as far as the eye can see.

My everyday skis are now 178 cm, used to be 205 cm. Must remember to thank NASA for that.

Bill, somehow I knew you'd argue with what I posted. You seem to have a knack for that. Anyway, I didn't write that list, I merely copied it from a page I found on a Google search for "What has the space program done for me?" I just thought you'd find it interesting.

Gary

[Matt Gunsch]

Bill Greenwood wrote:

My everyday skis are now 178 cm, used to be 205 cm. Must remember to thank NASA for that.

And why is that Bill, are they stronger now ? Of coure anyone who thinks it fun to strap a couple pf boards to their feet and throw themsleves down a mountin has to have gone too long without O2.

[Bill Greenwood]

Kyleb, since you seem to feel putting several $ trillion( guesstimate figures) into the space program over fifty years without much REAL return for your/our money is a good long term investment, boy have I got a deal for you. Just give my ole bud Bernie Madoff a call, better yet send him a big check. He'll get back to you, oh around the year 2058.

Gary, my question is pretty simple. It is, Where is the real Economic return in to the average taxpayer for the vast sums of money put into the space program/NASA? I am very aware that they have a good pr dept and can come up with lots of sub products they claim a part of. But let's just say medical telemetry which I know little about. If you really wanted to develop this, wouldn't putting the money directly into that field work better than as a NASA by product? If the taxpayers wanted safer cars would it make sense to fund that research directly or give $$$billions to Indy or Nascar out of which might also come safer brakes or seat belts?

Gary, where do you draw the line between a discussion and an argument?

[Neal Nurmi]

I liken the space program to my finances. I put away money in 401k's and other investments which I don't expect will pay off imediately. I could get instant gratification by using that money to go on vacation, to update the panel in my airplane, or to buy baubles for my wife. But I think it is more important to invest for the future.

What you and the government are missing, though, is that investing assumes you have something to invest. The problem now, I think, is that the U. S. (and Europe etc.) is effectively bankrupt. Any money to be invested must be borrowed and we've run up our credit card balances so far at this point that we are resorting to just printing money to cover expenditures. We have a problem here...

[Kyleb]

I liken the space program to my finances. I put away money in 401k's and other investments which I don't expect will pay off imediately. I could get instant gratification by using that money to go on vacation, to update the panel in my airplane, or to buy baubles for my wife. But I think it is more important to invest for the future.

What you and the government are missing, though, is that investing assumes you have something to invest. The problem now, I think, is that the U. S. (and Europe etc.) is effectively bankrupt. Any money to be invested must be borrowed and we've run up our credit card balances so far at this point that we are resorting to just printing money to cover expenditures. We have a problem here...

Eliminating the space program isn't going to fix the US budget or even help at a noticable level. In the big picture, the NASA's budget is more or less insignificant in the overall budget picture.

The 2008 US budget was $2.9 trillion. 2008 spending on entitlements were $1.4 trillion of the $2.9. Debt service in 2008 was 260 billion. The remaining $1.1+ trillion went to defense, education, NASA, etc. FYI, NASA's budget was <$18 billion. Effectively less than 1/10 of 1% of the $2.9 trillion overall budget. If you figure in obligations that don't show up in the budget, 2008's *true* obligation that taxpayers will have to address is/was probably $3.5 Trillion or more.

The bottom line is that eliminating space exploration isn't going to fix the budget. Also, for the $17 billion spent on space exploration, at least the country is getting something for that money. Jobs being created, profits to corporations which are owned by shareholders, etc. That $$ is spread through the economy and has a multiplier effect, similar to infrastructure spending. It isn't like the money goes away.

The bottom line is that if we want to fix the Defecit or retire the National Debt, we're gonna have to cut back on entitlements. There is no other way, IMO.

[Bill Greenwood]

Kyleb, my question was not so much about balancing the budget or eintitilments, whatever programs you mean by that. I am sure those programs may have waste also.

You mention that money spent on NASA provides side benefits like jobs. But this isn't exclusive to NASA. Money spent on cancer research or rebuilding housing in Hurricane hit areas, or whatever worthwhile cause would also provide jobs.

As for budget balancing, the only balanced budget I know of in 50 years came under Clinton, but it wasn't just control of spending, it was that the economy and the market were so good that there were large tax revenues coming in. That is not the case today. And if we are going to rebalance the budget, it seems a good idea to look at all programs on a cost/benefit analysis, not just the big ones. I don't think it is either the right thing to do, nor the feasible one to just cut social security for instance and leave people out in the cold after they have paid taxes into a program. But that's not what my post is about. It is just that I see NASA, whether at $17 billion or $70 billion as sort of a sacred cow, that the average taxpayer or the media don't even look at.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[APG85]

Although in many cases the space program invents technology, for the most part it accelerates technology. In many respects that is its greatest benefit. The advances made in the medical community alone that can be traced to Apollo are impressive. I'm not talking procedures or cures, but equipment and miniaturization. Think of the countless lives that have been saved in the last 40 years in our nation’s hospitals due to the advances in medical hardware that can be traced to Apollo accelerating technology. I had a long discussion about this once with a surgeon and it was an eye opener to say the least. NASA is a National treasure and is definitely worth the money...

[Obergrafeter]

A skeptical look at warbirds.........................just exactly what has a Spitfire done for the good of mankind in the last oh say 60 years. Put it out to pasture it is no good to anybody. Better yet give it to me and I will take care of that non-essential piece of junk for you.

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

In just one word

VELCRO !

[Enemy Ace]

Bill, I generally agree with alot of what you post but here I think you're p--ing up the wrong tree.
If nothing else the space program has motivated myself and probably millions of others to get/complete a technical education and strive for perfection every day.
The government is NOT a business, and everything shouldn't have to show a profit every quarter at the expense of long range R&D. Just look at what that sort of thinking has done to our nations businesses.
I am a taxpayer, and I 110% support NASA because I want to know what's out there....just look at the hubble pictures sometime for something truly awe inspiring.
A thousand years from now when the USA is ancient history it will still be remembered that the United States of America put a man on the moon.....using 2 sticks called a "slide rule".